RKMAN  GLUB  PUBLICATIONS 

I  No.  14 

MiWAUK|]d)E,  Wis.,  April  13,  1897 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT 


A  Wisconsin  Episode  of  1848-1851 


By  John  Goadby  Gregory 


Printed  for  the  Parkman  Club  by  Edward  Keogh 


The  Land-Limitation  Movement. 


A  Wisconsin  Episode  of  1848-1851.* 


A  spirit  of  short-sighted  proletarianism  was  fitfully  preva¬ 
lent  in  Wisconsin  for  several  years  before  and  after  the  admis¬ 
sion  of  the  territory  to  statehood.  It  manifested  itself  in  a  dis¬ 
trust  and  dislike  of  corporate  enterprises  generally.  It  was  one 
of  the  factors  in  the  fierce  and  .successful  onslaught  upon  the 
Milwaukee  and  Rock  River  Canal  project,  overturning  a 
scheme  of  internal  improvement  encouraged  by  a  valuable 
grant  of  land  from  the  national  government,  and  smugly  divert¬ 
ing  the  greater  part  of  the  proceeds  of  the  grant  to  other  uses 
than  those  for  which  it  had  been  deyised.  The  same  spirit  was 
disclosed  in  the  generally  inimical  attitude  of  the  Territorial 
Assembly  toward  banking  enterprises,  and  saliently  displayed 
itself  in  the  anti-bank  article  of  the  draft  of  a  state  constitution 
submitted  to  the  people  by  the  first  Constitutional  Convention. 
This  article  not  only  forbade  the  existence  of  banks  of  issue,  but 
went  so  far  as  to  provide  that  it  should  be  ‘'unlawful  for  any  cor¬ 
poration,  under  any  pretense  or  authority,  to  exercise  the  busi¬ 
ness  of  receiving  deposits  of  money,  making  discounts,  or  buy- 


*  Note. — The  documentary  sources  from  which  the  materials  for  this  paper  have 
been  drawn  are  the  journals  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  of  1851,  and  the  files  of  Mil¬ 
waukee  newspapers — chiefly  the  Daily  Wisconsin  and  The  Sentinel.  The  appendix  to 
the  Senate  journal  contains  the  text  of  Gov.  Dewey’s  Message.  The  appendix  to  the 
A.ssemby  journal  contains  the  report  of  Assemblyman  W.  K.  Wilson's  committee  in  favor 
of  the  land-limitation  bill.  The  Wisconsin’s  files,  from  1848  to  1851,  contain  numerous 
references  to  meetings  of  the  Land  Reform  A.ssociation,  and  verv  full  reports  of  the 
proceedings  in  the  Assembly,  including  the  text  of  several  of  the  more  important 
speeches  for  and  against  the  bill;  also  correspondence  on  both  sides  of  the  question, 
and  exten.sive  reports  of  the  public  meetings  to  discuss  the  measure  which  were  held 
in  Milwaukee  while  it  was  pending  in  the  Legislature.  I  have  talked  on  the  subject 
with  S.  M.  Booth,  William  Whitnall  and  other  survivors  of  the  men  who  were  active 
participants  in  the  controversy.  I  cannot  find  that  any  of  the  loyal  advocates  of  land- 
limitation  in  1851  have  changed  their  minds.  Andrew  E.  Elmore,  writing  from  Green 


90 


333 


THE  L  A  ND-L IMI TA ITON  MO  VEME N  T. 

ing  or  selling  bills  of  exchange,  or  to  do  any  other  banking 
business  whatever.”  Another  conspicuous  exhibition  of  the 
same  spirit  was  presented  by  the  land-limitation  agitation  of 
1848-1851. 

Let  us  try  to  realize  what  Wisconsin  was  at  the  time  when 
this  agitation  took  place.  The  whole  population  of  the  state 
was  300,000 — not  greatly  larger  than  that  of  Milwaukee  today. 
This  population  was,  for  the  most  part,  huddled  in  the  eastern 
half  of  the  southern  tiers  of  counties,  Milwaukee  county  having 
31,119  inhabitants,  and  Rock  county  30,717,  while  Washing¬ 
ton,  Waukesha  and  Dodge  came  next  with  19,000  each.  Wal¬ 
worth  had  17,866,  Dane  16,654,  Grant  16,169,  Jef¥erson  15,339, 
and  Racine  14,971.  Fond  du  Lac  was  the  only  other  county 
in  the  state  which  contained  more  than  12,000  people.  Mil¬ 
waukee  was  a  city  of  20,000,  with  325  buildings,  which  had  been  , 
erected  at  an  aggregate  cost  of  $369,000.  That  is  to  say,  all  the 
buildings  in  Milwaukee  in  1850  represented  an  investment  not 
greatly  larger  than  one-third  of  the  cost  of  the  present  city  hall. 
It  was  an  active  population  intellectually.  There  were  in  Mil¬ 
waukee  seven  daily  newspapers — four  English  and  three  Ger¬ 
man.  It  was  energetic  and  thrifty.  The  industries  of  farming 
and  lumbering  had  sprung  up  into  importance,  overshadowing 
the  mining  industry  of  the  lead  region,  which  had  been  the  lead¬ 
ing,  and,  practically,  the  only,  industry  of  Wisconsin  a  few 
years  before.  The  building  of  plank  roads  had  been  under¬ 
taken  with  considerable  energy,  and  the  construction  of  rail¬ 
roads  had  just  begun.  A  tide  of  immigration  was  pouring  in 

Bay,  where  he  now  resides  in  vigorous  old  age,  said,  under  date  of  April  19,  1897: 
“Land-limitation  was  right.  Then  it  might  have  been  put  into  operation.  Now  it  is 
very  doubtful.  But  it  is  just  and  right  now.”  Mr.  Booth  and  Mr.  Whitnall,  in  response 
to  quesUons  which  I  put  to  them,  gave  answers  to  the  same  effect.  Mr.  Elmore  is  in 
possession  of  printed  documents  and  manu.scripts,  stowed  away  where  they  cannot  be 
readily  got  at.  that  are  rich  in  details— personal  and  other— relating  to  the  movement, 
and  that  will  be  examined  with  interest  by  students  of  the  subject  whenever  they  are 
brought  to  light.  From  the  published  catalogue  of  the  library  of  the  Wisconsin  His¬ 
torical  Societv,  I  infer  that  the  files  of  the  Free  Democrat  for  the  period  covered  in  this 
paper  are  not  in  its  collection.  Mr.  Booth  tells  me  that  his  report  of  the  Milwaukee 
meeting  of  February  19,  1851.  was  not  publi.shed  in  the  body  of  his  paper,  but  in  a 
supplement,  intended  to  be  distributed  as  a  broadside,  in  order  to  give  it  greater 
circulation,  and  that,  through  an  inadvertency,  this  supplement  was  omitted  from  the 
bound  file.  J.  G.  G. 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT 


91 


from  the  Eastern  states  as  well  as  from  Europe.  The  number 
of  inhabitants  in  Wisconsin  increased  from  30,000  in  1840  to 
305,000  in  1850.  Never  since  the  foundation  of  the  Union  had 
a  state  advanced  so  rapidly  in  population.  Naturally,  specula¬ 
tion  in  farming  and  timber  lands  as  well  as  in  town-sites  and 
city  lots  was  a  business  that  enlisted  the  energies  of  many  enter¬ 
prising  men. 

The  land-limitation  movement  did  not  originate  in  Wiscon¬ 
sin.  Its  birthplace  was  in  the  Eastern  states,  where  there  was 
at  that  time  a  very  respectable  element  ready  to  give  audience 
to  everyone  having  or  professing  to  have  a  new-fangled  recipe 
for  abolishing  human  misery.  Eourierism,  and  a  crop  of  other 
highly  artificial  economic  panaceas,  fascinated  the  imaginations 
of  these  amiable  enthusiasts,  until  the  experience  derived  from 
the  failure  of  the  Brook  Earm  experiment  and  kindred  attempts 
to  put  ideal  social  conceptions  into  practice  taught  them  that 
while  human  nature  remains  what  it  is  it  will  be  impossible  to 
banish  poverty  and  make  all  mankind  materially  prosperous 
by  law.  Horace  Greeley,  who,  in  his  early  days,  had  a  friendly 
feeling  for  experimental  legislation,  delivered,  between  1842 
and  1848,  a  series  of  lectures  on  social  problems  which  are  pre¬ 
served  in  his  book  entitled,  “Hints  Toward  Reforms.’’  In  one 
of  these  lectures,  referring  to  “the  newly  agitated  land  question 
— the  right  of  man  to  the  soil” — he  said : 

“Man  having  a  conceded  right  to  live,  has  a  necessary  right, 
also,  to  a  reasonable  share  of  those  means  of  subsistence  which 
God  has  provided  for  and  made  virtually  necessary  to  the  whole 
human  family.  *  *  *  He  can  only  in  truth  enjoy  the 

rights  of  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  by  being  guar¬ 
anteed  some  place  in  which  to  enjoy  them.  He  who  has  no 
clear,  inherent  right  to  live  somewhere,  has  no  right  to  live  at 
all.  *  *  Suppose  the  usage  and  the  law  were  so  changed 

that  no  man  were  permitted,  in  this  boasted  land  of  equal  rights, 
to  hold  as  his  own  more  than  half  a  square  mile  of  arable  soil 
(which  is  enough  for  fifty  men  to  cultivate)  so  long  as  a  single 
person  needing  land  in  the  community  should  remain  destitute 


1.24513 


92 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT 


of  any,  what  a  mighty  and  beneficial  transformation  would  be 
effected  in  the  reward  of  labor  and  the  condition  of  the  laboring 
class!’’ 

As  the  publication  of  Bellamy’s  “Looking  Backward”  was 
followed  a  few  years  ago  by  the  organization  of  brief-lived 
socialistic  clubs,  and  as  the  publication  of  Henry  George’s 
“Progress  and  Poverty”  gave  rise  to  a  mushroom  growth  of 
single-tax  clubs,  so  the  proposition  of  such  doctrines  as  this,  by 
Greeley  and  other  fluent  writers  and  speakers,  furnished  the 
incentive  for  the  founding  of  a  National  Reform  Association, 
with  local  branches  at  various  places  in  the  United  States. 
The  most  active  and  prominent  of  these  bodies  in  Wisconsin 
was  located  at  Mukwonago,  twenty-six  miles  from  Milwaukee, 
on  the  Janesville  plank  road,  and  its  master  spirit  is  conceded 
to  have  been  Andrew  E.  Elmore,  who  was  a  conspicuous  per¬ 
sonal  influence  in  the  politics  of  those  days.  Mukwonago’s 
relative  importance  then  was  greater  than  it  is  now.  It  was  a 
flourishing  post  village  of  500  inhabitants,  on  one  of  the  most 
frequently  traveled  highways  of  the  state,  and  Elmore  was  inti¬ 
mately  acquainted  with  the  politics  and  the  leading  men  of 
every  part  of  Wisconsin.  Another  branch  of  the  National 
Reform  Association  was  established  in  Milwaukee.  Promi¬ 
nent  among  its  members  was  Dr.  Erancis  Huebschman,  who 
had  been  a  member  of  the  first  state  Constitutional  Convention, 
and  a  presidential-elector-at-large  on  the  Democratic  ticket  in 
1848.  W.  K.  Wilson,  S.  M.  Booth,  William  Whitnall,  Avery 
Hill,  and  William  Haywood  were  among  the  other  leading 
members,  several  of  whom  were  high  in  the  councils  of  the 
Democrats  and  the  Free  Sobers.  The  membership  was  not 
large — not  more  than  twenty-five,  Mr.  Whitnall  thinks;  but  the 
organization  conducted  an  active  propaganda,  in  which  it  was 
valiantly  assisted  by  Mr.  Booth’s  anti-slavery  newspaper.  The 
Free  Democrat,  and  also  by  another  influential  daily  newspaper 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


93 


of  that  time,  Democratic  in  politics,  The  Commercial  Adver¬ 
tiser. 

In  the  fall  of  1848  the  National  Reform  Association 
arrang^ed  for  the  appointment  of  local  committees  to  secure 
from  candidates  for  office  pledges  to  support  the  principles  of 
the  association.  The  local  committee  in  Milwaukee  consisted 
of  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Whitnall. 

The  pledge  which  candidates  were  requested  to  sign  was  to 
the  effect  that  they  would  use  “all  their  influence,  in  office  and 
out,”  to  secure  the  legal  adoption  of  the  following  principles : 

“1.  To  limit  the  quantity  of  land  any  individual  may  here¬ 
after  acquire  in  this  state. 

“2.  To  prevent  all  further  traffic  in  the  public  lands  of  this 
state,  and  cause  them  to  be  laid  out  in  farms  and  lots  for  the  free 
and  exclusive  use  of  actual  settlers  not  possessed  of  other  lands, 
in  limited  quantities. 

“3.  To  limit  the  hours  of  labor  to  ten,  on  all  public  works, 
and  in  establishments  chartered  by  law. 

“4.  To  maintain  the  present  homestead  exemption  law  of 
this  state,  and  to  oppose  any  changes  that  shall  not  recognize 
the  principle  that  the  homestead,  whether  a  farm  or  lot  of  a 
limited  quantity,  shall  be  exempt,  irrespective  of  pecuniary 
valuation.” 

The  fourth  and  last  of  the  principles  thus  enumerated  was 
merely  a  reaffirmation  of  what  was  already  the  law  in  this  state. 
The  third,  favoring  shorter  hours  for  labor,  has  since  been 
embodied  in  legislation  by  Congress  and  by  most  of  the  states 
of  the  Union.  The  principles  for  which  the  efforts  of  the 
Reform  Association  were  put  forth  were  those  enunciated  in 
the  first  and  second  paragraphs  of  the  pronunciamento  quoted 
above,  and  the  main  endeavors  of  the  association  were  concen¬ 
trated  upon  securing  legal  enforcement  of  the  innovation  pro¬ 
posed  in  the  first  paragraph,  restricting  the  scope  of  individual 
ownership  of  land.  It  was  an  effort  to  accomplish  the  same 
thing  which  Henry  George  has  recently  aimed  to  achieve  in 
another  way,  and  the  arguments  employed  in  its  favor  were 


94 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT 


similar  to  those  advanced  in  support  of  the  theories  of  Henry 
George. 

In  the  year  1850  a  convention  of  land  reformers,  made  up  of 
delegates  from  several  states,  was  held  in  Chicago,  and  in  the 
same  year  a  bill  embodying  the  dogma  of  land-limitation  was 
introduced  in  the  legislature  of  New  York;  but  I  can  not  find 
that  the  movement  acquired  in  any  other  state  anything  like  the 
momentum  which  it  attained  in  Wisconsin.  The  leaders  of  the 
land-limitation  crusade  in  this  state  were  exceptionally  active 
and  aggressive  men.  “Our  plan  of  campaign,”  said  Mr.  Whit- 
nall,  with  whom  I  conversed  on  the  subject,  while  collecting 
materials  for  this  paper,  “was  to  question  the  candidates  of  all 
parties,  and  vote  for  none  who  did  not  pledge  themselves  to  our 
cause.  When  William  Pitt  Lynde  ran  for  Congress  on  the 
Democratic  ticket,  in  1848,  he  ignored  our  circular,  and  to  a 
committee  whom  we  appointed  to  wait  upon  him  he  made  a  dis¬ 
respectful  reply.  But  when  the  day  of  election  drew  near,  he 
changed  front.  He  saw  that  a  few  votes  one  way  or  the  other 
would  determine  the  result,  and  he  wrote  the  pledge  which  we 
desired.  The  day  before  election  he  came  to  me  with  Mr.  Wil¬ 
son,  and  wanted  me  to  go  to  Mukwonago  and  tell  Elmore.  I 
said  I  would  go  if  he  would  pay  my  livery  bill.  He  agreed  to 
this,  and  I  rode  a  horse  to  Mukwonago  and  notified  Mr. 
Elmore,  who  sent  out  word  that  the  opposition  to  Lynde  was 
withdrawn.  Mr.  Lynde  was  elected.  So  far  as  I  know,  how¬ 
ever,  he  never  did  anything  to  promote  our  principles.”  Mr. 
Wilson  cites  the  names  of  Moses  M.  Strong,  Charles  Dunn, 
James.  D.  Doty  and  James  B.  Cross,  as  those  of  men  prominent 
in  Wisconsin  politics  at  that  time  who  were  pledged  to  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  Land  Reformers. 

The  Milwaukee  newspapers  of  1850  show  that  meetings  of 
the  Milwaukee  Land  Reform  Association  were  held  at  the  nevv^s 
depot  of  John  Tanner,  No.  9  Michigan  street,  at  frequent  inter¬ 
vals  during  that  year.  The  work  of  securing  pledges  from  can- 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


95 


didates  was  sedulously  prosecuted,  and  when  the  time  for  the 
meeting  of  the  Legislature  drew  near,  the  land  reformers  felt 
confident  that  they  had  a  large  majority  of  the  members  of  that 
body  so  strongly  committed  to  land-limitation  that  a  measure 
embodying  the  principle  was  certain  to  become  a  law. 

The  Legislature  convened  at  Madison  on  Wednesday,  the 
8th  of  January,  1851.  Among  the  members  of  the  Assembly 
were  several  men  whose  names  are  written  in  large  letters  in  the 
history  of  the  state.  Experience  Estabrook  and  Wyman 
Spooner  were  members  from  Walworth  county.  William  E. 
Smith,  afterward  Governor,  was  a  member  from  Dodge,  and 
William  L.  Utley  headed  the  delegation  from  Racine  county. 
Washington  county  was  represented  by  Erederick  W.  Horn, 
who  was  elected  speaker.  The  Milwaukee  delegation  consisted 
of  William  K.  Wilson,  Charles  E.  Jenkins,  John  L.  Doran, 
George  H.  Walker,  Enoch  Chase,  Tobias  G.  Osborne  and 
Patrick  Carney. 

The  annual  message  of  Governor  Nelson  Dewey,  delivered 
to  the  Legislature  on  the  second  day  of  the  session,  contained 
a  passage  on  the  subject  of  land-limitation,  that  was  referred  by 
the  Assembly  to  a  special  committee,  of  which  W.  K.  Wilson 
was  chairman.  After  arguing  in  favor  of  the  proposition  that 
the  lands  comprising  the  public  domain  should  be  ‘'sold  only 
to  actual  settlers,  in  limited  quantities,  at  no  more  than  the 
actual  cost,”  the  message  went  on  to  declare  that  “the  concen¬ 
tration  of  the  right  of  soil  in  the  hands  of  the  minority  is  fol¬ 
lowed  by  results  destructive  of  the  liberty  of  man and  that  “it 
is  the  oppression  of  the  landlord,  as  much  as  the  tyranny  of  gov¬ 
ernment,  that  drives  the  foreign  immigrant  to  the  wilds  of 
America;”  and  that  “we  are  approaching  the  same  monopoliz¬ 
ing  result  (perhaps  not  in  the  same  ratio)  in  some  of  the  older 
states  in  the  Eederal  Union;”  and  that  “it  becomes,  therefore, 
a  subject  of  high  interest  to  the  mass  of  our  people”  that  land- 
limitation  “should  be  discussed  as  a  question  of  political 


96 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT 


economy,  and  that  the  legislation  of  the  country  should  aid  in 
its  practical  application  whenever  it  can  be  done  without  crip¬ 
pling  individual  enterprise  or  violating  private  rights.” 

Exactly  one  week  from  the  day  on  which  “that  part  of  the 
Governor’s  message  relating  to  land-limitation”  was  referred  to 
Mr.  Wilson’s  select  committee,  the  chairman  reported  bill  No. 
14A.,  “a  bill  to  limit  the  quantity  of  lands  hereafter  to  be  held 
or  owned  by  any  one  person,”  which  was  read  the  first  and 
second  times.  The  text  of  the  bill  was  as  follows: 

“Section  1.  From  and  after  the  4th  day  of  July,  1851,  no  individual  shall  become 
owner  or  possessor,  in  his  or  her  own  right,  of  more  than  320  acres  of  agricultural 
land,  or,  in  lieu  thereof,not  more  than  two  lots  of  one  acre  each  being  within  a  recorded 
town,  plat,  city  or  village. 

“Sec.  2.  Any  person  now  owning  or  possessing  more  land  than  is  limited  in  the 
la.st  preceding  section  of  this  act  shall  have  the  right  to  own,  po.ssess  and  enjoy  the 
same  during  his  or  her  life  and  at  his  or  her  decease  to  devise  it  to  whom  he  or  she 
may  think  proper  as  now  they  may  under  existing  laws,  and  the  devisee  shall  have  a 
title  to  the  same:  Provided,  however,  that  within  one  year  from  the  time  when  the 
title  of  .said  devisee  shall  be  recognized  said  devi.see  shall  bona  fide  sell  and  convey  all 
the  exce.ss  in  quantity  of  said  lands,  whether  agricultural  lands  or  lots,  over  and  above 
the  said  limit  named  in  section  first  of  this  act,  to  other  persons,  so  that  the  said 
limitation,  including  all  his  laud,  may  be  practically  secured. 

“Sec.  3.  If  any  person  now  owning  or  possessing  more  land  than  is  limited  in 
section  first  of  this  act  shall  die  intestate  his  real  estate  shall  descend  and  vest  in  his 
widow,  heirs  or  representatives,  in  conformity  with  the  intestate  laws  of  the  state  of 
Wisconsin:  Provided,  however,  that  no  one  person  shall  take  what  would  make  more 
than  the  said  limited  quantity,  and  the  excess  shall  be  .sold  by  order  of  the  court  and 
the  proceeds  divided  among  the  parties  interested  as  the  real  estate  would  have  been 
divided  had  this  act  not  been  oassed. 

“Sec.  4.  If  two  or  more  persons  shall  have  lands  together,  the  total  quantity  to  be 
held  by  them  shall  not  exceed  the  amount  which  would  be  formed  by  the  said  limita¬ 
tions  to  each  one.  All  contracts  or  bargains,  sales  and  conveyances  by  and  between 
parties  in  contravention  of  this  law  shall  be  null  and  void;  and  any  person  granting  or 
coming  into  possession  or  enjoyment  of  land  in  contravention  of  this  law  shall  not  be 
entitled  to  maintain  any  action  in  regard  to  the  same,  either  for  trespass,  eviction, 
damage  or  rent;  and  any  person  holding  as  a  tenant  under  such  person  so  owning  or 
possessing  the  said  lands  in  contravention  of  this  law  may,  notwithstaudibg  any  deed 
or  contract  between  them,  show  the  «truth  of  the  facts  and,  upon  due  proof  thereof, 
shall  be  exempt  from  any  liabilities  to  the  said  party  by  reason  of  the  premises. 

“Sec.  5  The  excess  of  lands  which  any  person  shall  contract  for  or  own  and 
possess  in  contravention  of  this  law,  shall,  in  case  the  jury  shall  believe  that  there  was 
a  willful  intent  to  contravene  the  law,  escheat  to  the  state;  and  one-half  thereof,  or  .so 
much  as  shall  not,  with  his  or  her  other  po.ssessions,  make  more  than  the  said  limita¬ 
tions,  shall  be  the  property  of  the  informer. 

“Sec.  6.  This  law  shall  not  apply  to  cases  where  lands  are  bona  fide  held  by 
trustees,  guardians  or  others,  in  trust  for  persons,  provided  the  quantities  of  laud  held 
in  trust  for  said  persons  shall  not  respectively  exceed  the  said  limitations  as  herein 
enacted. 

“Sec.  7.  From  and  after  the  4th  day  of  July,  1851,  where  the  same  person  owns 
two  or  more  lots  in  any  recorded  town  plot  or  plots,  city  or  village  in  the  state  of  Wis¬ 
consin,  he  or  she  shall  be  taxed  for  the  .same,  on  the  principle  of  a  sliding  scale,  to  be 
adjusted  as  follows,  namely:  as  one,  two.  three,  four,  etc.,  increasing  continually  in 
arithmetical  progre.s.siou  by  the  common  difference  of  one  on  the  rate  of  taxation; 
provided,  however,  that  if  not  more  than  two  lots  are  held  by  the  same  person,  and 
one  is  used  for  his  residence  and  the  other  for  his  own  proper  business,  as  a  shop, 
store,  factory,  or  place  of  work,  then  the  law  shall  not  apply  in  regard  to  those  two 
lots,  but  they  shall  be  taxed  as  if  this  law  had  not  been  passed;  and  provided  also  that 
where  lots  are  held  in  a  representative  capacity,  and  the  person  for  whose  use  they  are 
held  owns  two  or  more  lots,  this  rule  of  taxation,  with  the  benefit  of  the  proviso,  shall 
apply  in  regard  to  the  person  for  whose  use  they  are  held,  as  if  held  in  his  or  her  own 
name. 

“Sec.  8.  If  any  person  or  persons  shall  make  fraudulent  nominal  transfers  of  his 
or  her  or  their  lots,  or  any  one  or  more  thereof,  or  cause  them  to  be  held  in  the  name  or 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


97 


names  of  others,  with  a  view  to  evade  the  operation  of  this  law,  such  person  or  persons, 

being  duly  convicted  thereof,  shall  forfeit  and  pay  a  penalty  not  exceeding  - 

dollars  with  cost  of  suit,  one-half  of  said  penalty  to  the  state  and  the  other  half  to 
whomever  will  sue  for  the  same.” 

The  news  that  the  bill  had  been  introduced  in  the  Assembly, 
and  the  fear  that  it  would  become  a  law,  aroused  great  excite¬ 
ment,  particularly  in  Milwaukee.  People  who  had  paid  little 
attention  to  the  land  reformers,  believing  that  they  were  harm¬ 
less  visionaries  who  would  never  get  the  substantial  support  of 
the  law-makers,  began  to  think  that  there  was  danger  to  the 
business  interests  of  the  state,  and  that  a  counter-agitation, 
inculcating  the  principles  of  conservatism,  was  necessary  to 
avert  calamity. 

The  Daily  Wisconsin  of  January  31,  1851,  contained  a  com¬ 
munication,  signed  ‘‘Anti-Humbug,”  denouncing  the  land- 
limitation  measure  as  “a  blow  aimed  at  the  rights  of  property,” 
and  affirming:  “It  attempts  to  break  down  the  guarantees  of 
the  constitution  of  our  state  (see  Art.  VIII.,  Sec.  i,)  in  its  unjust 
provision  in  regard  to  the  imposition  of  taxes.  It  would  put 
an  end  to  enterprise,  and  take  away  every  inducement  to  indus¬ 
try  and  prudence,  and  arrest  men  in  their  lawful  acquisition  of 
property.  It  makes  every  man  an  informer,  to  watch  the 
accumulations  of  his  neighbor,  and  when  he  discovers  that  he 
has,  by  industry  and  sagacity,  acquired  more  than  this  law 
allows,  to  discover  the  fact  and  carry  off  the  plunder,  to  be 
divided  between  himself  and  a  sovereign  state.”  This  sounded 
the  key-note  of  a  blast  of  robust  criticism  directed  from  various 
quarters  against  the  proposed  law. 

Meantime,  Mr.  Wilson’s  bill  seems  to  have  had  smooth  sail¬ 
ing  in  the  Legislature.  On  the  3d  of  February  its  author  suc¬ 
cessfully  moved  that  it  be  made  the  special  order  of  the  day  for 
Monday,  February  17.  Determining  to  turn  criticism  to  profit, 
the  friends  of  the  measure  considerably  strengthened  it  by 
amendments  made  in  committee  of  the  whole.  The  amend¬ 
ments  doubled  the  quantity  of  land  which  might  be  acquired  by 
one  person,  setting  the  limit  at  640  acres  in  the  country  and  at 


98 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


four  village  or  city  lots  of  one  acre  each ;  and  furthermore  made 
the  operation  of  the  law  entirely  prospective,  cutting  out  the 
sliding  scale  of  taxation  on  city  lots. 

There  was  a  test  vote  on  the  6th  of  February,  in  which  those 
voting  with  Mr.  Wilson  numbered  42,  while  the  opposition 
mustered  only  15.  The  question  was  on  concurring  in  the 
amendments  to  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee  of  the  whole, 
and  Mr.  Chase,  who  was  against  the  bill,  moved  adjournment, 
which  was  disagreed  to,  when  the  main  question  was  put,  with 
the  result  in  favor  of  the  bill  noted  above. 

The  organized  opposition  to  the  bill  which  had  begun  in 
Milwaukee  steadily  gathered  force.  The  Wisconsin  on  Febru¬ 
ary  8th  editorially  denied  that  the  Democratic  party  was  com¬ 
mitted  to  the  doctrine  of  land-limitation  embodied  in  the  Wilson 
bill,  and  in  support  of  its  position  quoted  “the  carefully  consid¬ 
ered  resolution  adopted  at  the  state  convention  held  in  Septem¬ 
ber,  1849,  Democratic  state  convention  held  in  Wis¬ 

consin 

'‘Resolved,  That  the  public  lands  should  be  granted  to  actual 
settlers,  under  reasonable  limitations,  at  the  lowest  possible 
prices.” 

The  Wisconsin  laid  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  resolution 
confined  land-limitation  to  government  lands,  and  contained 
not  one  word  relative  to  limiting  the  private  acquisitions  of 
individuals.  On  February  nth  five  hundred  residents  of  Mil¬ 
waukee  published  a  call  for  a  mass  meeting  of  citizens  “opposed 
to  the  provisions  of  the  bill  now  before  the  Legislature  on  the 
subject  of  land-limitation,”  “for  the  purpose  of  adopting  such 
measures  as  may  be  deemed  expedient,  and  as  the  exigencies  of 
the  case  may  seem  to  require.”  The  call  went  on  to  say : 

“The  signs  of  the  times  indicate  that  our  young  and  rising 
state  is  likely  to  be  cursed  with  the  blighting,  withering  princi¬ 
ples  of  agrarianism,  socialism  and  a  brood  of  other  isms  too 
numerous  to  mention,  unless  the  intelligent,  high-minded, 
thinking  portion  of  the  community  comes  to  the  rescue.  From 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT 


99 


the  action  already  taken  by  the  Legislature  on  the  subject  in 
question,  this  city  begins  to  realize  its  bitter  fruits.  Contem¬ 
plated  improvements  that  would  afford  employment  to  num¬ 
bers  of  mechanics  and  laborers  are  being  suspended,  and  a 
general  want  of  confidence  in  the  stability  of  our  laws  is  mani¬ 
fest  in  every  department  of  business.  Let  no  man  be  deceived. 
There  is  a  crisis  in  the  history  of  our  young  state.  Apathy  now 
may  result  in  ruin  to  our  fairest  prospects;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  action — prompt,  efficient  action — may  avert  the  calamity. 
Let,  therefore,  every  man  who  loves  Wisconsin  for  what  she  is 
and  what  she  may  be,  and  has  in  view  the  well-being  and  pros¬ 
perity  of  her  citizens — who  appreciates  the  benefits  and 
rewards  of  a  life  of  virtue,  industry,  frugality  and  strict  integ¬ 
rity,  and  deprecates  the  bribes  and  rewards  held  out  by  dema¬ 
gogues  and  political  gamblers,  to  idleness  and  legalized  dis¬ 
honesty — attend  the  meeting  and  cast  his  influence  against  one 
of  the  monster  humbugs  of  the  age.” 

Among  the  signers  of  this  document  were:  James  S. 
Brown,  E.  G.  Ryan,  J.  B.  Cross,  D.  Wells,  Jr.,  D.  H.  Chandler, 
H.  K.  White,  E.  B.  Wolcott,  G.  Shoyer,  John  White,  John  Eur- 
long,  A.  Kirby,  J.  A.  Helfenstein,  A.  Einch,  Jr.,  James  D.  Mer¬ 
rill,  R.  Steinhart  and  A.  Einch. 

The  meeting  thus  summoned  was  held  on  the  evening  of 
Saturday,  Eebruary  15th,  at  Gardiner’s  Hall.  Daniel  H. 
Chandler  was  elected  chairman  and  Jasper  Vliet  secretary,  and 
a  committee  consisting  of  Edward  Button,  Hans  Crocker, 
Charles  H.  Larkin,  J.  E.  Gruenhagen  and  John  Eurlong  re¬ 
ported,  through  its  chairman,  Mr.  Crocker,  the  following  vig¬ 
orous  and  able  resolutions,  which  were  adopted  by  the  meeting: 

“Resolved,  That  the  evils  inflicted  on  many  states  of  the 
old  hemisphere  by  the  feudal  grants  and  tenures  of  land,  and  by 
the  laws  of  primogeniture  and  of  entails,  which  have  to  a  calam¬ 
itous  extent  made  the  soil  from  generation  to  generation  the 
inheritance  of  a  small  and  privileged  order,  can  never  find  a 
foothold  in  this  free  state,  where  no  privileged  class  exists, 
where  large  grants  of  land  are  unknown,  where,  with  few  and 
insignificant  exceptions,  all  titles  to  land  come  by  purchase  and 
are  the  chief  investment  which  industry  finds  for  its  surplus 
earnings;  where  entails  are  unknown,  where  the  distributive 


100 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT 


rule  of  inheritance  divides  and  subdivides  estates  at  each  suc¬ 
ceeding  generation,  and  where,  as  well  from  the  nature  of  our 
institutions  as  from  the  character  of  our  people,  no  system  of 
agricultural  tenancy  can  ever  find  its  way;  and  that  while  we 
freely  give  our  sympathies  and  our  prayers  to  the  impoverished 
people  who  suffer  abroad  under  remaining  fruits  of  the  feudal 
system,  we,  who  do  not  share  their  grievances,  can  not  consent 
to  import  from  them  those  movements  which  there  may  be  the 
beginning  of  necessary  political  revolution,  but  which  here  are 
a  simple  crusade  against  the  rights  of  Labor  and  Property. 

‘Atesoived,  That  the  law  of  nature  knows  no  property;  that 
in  our  political  system  all  property,  whether  in  land  or  in  mov¬ 
ables,  is  a  right  which  society  creates  for  the  recompense  of 
labor;  that  with  us  all  property  is  simply  industry  rewarded 
with  its  just  fruits,  and  that  every  infringement  upon  the  rights 
of  property  is  an  infringement  upon  the  rights  of  labor. 

''Resolved,  That  property  is  among  the  strongest  bonds 
which  holds  society  together,  and  that  every  attack  upon  the 
rights  of  property  tends  to  unsettle  the  foundations  of  society, 
and  that  no  state  can  be  prosperous  at  home,  or  honored 
abroad,  in  which  the  rights  of  property  are  not  field  sacred. 

"Resolved,  That  in  a  free  state,  peopled  by  an  enlightened 
and  enterprising  race,  where  all  men  have  the  same  civil  and 
political  rights,  and  the  rewards  of  labor  are  equally  within  the 
reach  of  all,  no  class  needs  legislative  protection  against  the 
industry,  skill  or  enterprise  of  another  class;  but  that  every 
limitation  of  the  right  to  acquire  or  transmit  property,  by 
setting  bounds  to  the  rewards  of  industry,  checks  individual 
enterprise  and  energy,  and  impedes  the  general  prosperity  of 
the  community. 

"Resolved,  That  there  is  no  difference  in  principles  between 
limiting  the  acquisition  of  land  and  limiting  the  acquisition  of 
any  other  species  of  property ;  it  is  true  that  man  can  not  create 
land,  but  also  true  that  he  can  create  no  other  thing.  Nature  is 
the  sole  creator;  man  can  but  use,  combine  or  apply;  and  if  it  be 
just  or  politic  to  limit  human  industry  in  the  acquisition  of  land, 
it  is  equally  just  and  politic  to  limit  it  in  the  acquisition  of  every 
other  species  of  property;  and  we,  in  Wisconsin,  busy  in  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
almost  forgotten  social  absurdities  of  antiquity,  when  we  have 
resuscitated  the  Licinian  Law,  repudiated  by  Rome  over  two 
thousand  years  ago,  should  in  common  consistency  astonish 
the  world  by  the  spectacle  of  disinterring  and  revivifying  the 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


]01 


whole  theory  of  sumptuary  laws  from  the  ruins  of  centuries  of 
exploded  error. 

'‘Resolved,  That  in  these  views  we  heartily  condemn  the 
Land-Limitation  Bill,  now  pending  in  the  Legislature  of  this 
state,  because  it  not  only  sets  bounds  to  the  future  rewards  of 
industry,  but  also  impairs  the  rights  of  present  property  in  land, 
by  limiting  the  power  of  transmission. 

“Resolved,  That  this  law,  if  passed,  will  speedily  exhibit  the 
first  fruits  of  a  crusade  against  the  rights  and  acquisition  of 
property,  by  repelling  the  immigration  of  labor  and  capital  to 
this  state;  by  depressing  the  value  and  diminishing  the  salable 
character  of  land;. by  disorganizing  all  the  relations  of  industry 
and  property,  and  by  fastening  everywhere  abroad  upon  this 
state  the  name  of  a  fickle  and  foolhardy  undertaker  of  specu¬ 
lative  and  reckless  experiments  upon  her  own  wealth,  pros¬ 
perity  and  honor.” 

Harlow  S.  Orton,  Arthur  McArthur,  Jonathan  E.  Arnold 
and  James  S.  Brown  addressed  the  meeting  in  speeches  against 
the  bill,  which  were  enthusiastically  received.  Mr.  Orton  con¬ 
fessed  a  belief  that  the  bill  was  sure  to  pass,  and  that  no  meet¬ 
ing,  however  large,  could  defeat  it. 

On  the  evening  of  the  19th  upward  of  700  citizens  of  Irish 
birth  met  at  City  Guards’  Hall  to  protest  against  the  passage  of 
the  bill.  Among  the  signatures  attached  to  the  call  for  this 
meeting  were  those  of  Dr.  James  Johnson,  Thomas  Keogh, 
Edward  Hackett,  Daniel  Kennedy,  John  Eurlong,  John  White, 
Matthew  Keenan,  Peter  Bradley,  Peter  Lynch,  Robert  B. 
Lynch,  Paul  Eoley,  Edward  Mahoney,  Michael  Dwyer  and 
John  Gregory.  The  wording  of  the  call  was  as  follows: 

“meeting  at  city  guards’  hall. 

“We,  the  undersigned,  adopted  citizens  of  Trish  Birth,’ 
invite  every  Irishman  in  this  city  to  attend  a  public  meeting,  to 
be  held  in  the  Military  Hall,  Johnson’s  Block,  at  7  o’clock, 
Tuesday  evening,  the  i8th  instant,  to  express  our  condemna¬ 
tion  of  the  Jacobin,  Red-Republican,  Infidel  and  Demoralizing 
Measure,  called  the  ‘Land- Limitation  Bill,’  now  before  the 
Legislature.  While  we  give  our  full  assent  to  every  line  of  the 
resolutions  adopted  at  the  mass  meeting  at  Gardiner’s  Hall,  on 


102 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


the  1 5th  instant,  and  to  every  sentiment  uttered  there — never¬ 
theless,  as  people  born  in  another  land,  we  desire  to  speak 
ESPECIALLY  in  this  matter. 

“We  have  no  fellowship  with  all  the  wild  infatuations,  hum¬ 
bugs  and  isms  of  the  day.  As  we  dearly  love  the  land  of  our 
birth,  we  love  with  no  less  affection  the  land  of  our  adoption 
and  her  noble  institutions.  We  came  to  this  free  land  poor  and 
penniless;  our  children  have  been  born  upon  this  soil;  we  have 
all,  with  few  exceptions,  accumulated  property;  the  high  road 
to  wealth  and  fame  is  open  to  every  man,  and  can  we  or  have  we 
any  cause  for  dissatisfaction?  None  whatever.  We  are  satis¬ 
fied  with  the  laws  as  they  are,  and  want  no  experimental  legis¬ 
lation.  We  invite  all  men  to  attend  and  participate  in  this 
meeting.’^ 

John  White  presided  at  the  meeting,  which  adopted  resolu¬ 
tions  presented  by  Dr.  Johnson,  breathing  the  spirit  of  the  call, 
and  requesting  the  Milwaukee  delegation  in  the  Legislature  to 
vote  against  the  Land-Limitation  Bill.  Speeches  antagonistic 
to  the  bill  were  made  by  Dr.  Johnson  and  James  S.  Brown. 

There  was  one  more  mass  meeting  in  Milwaukee  to  discuss 
land-limitation.  It  was  called  by  friends  of  Mr.  Wilson’s  bill; 
but  opponents  of  the  measure,  as  well  as  those  who  favored  it, 
were  invited  to  attend.  The  place  of  meeting  was  Gardiner’s 
Hall,  and  the  time  Wednesday  evening,  February  19th. 
Assemblyman  Charles  E.  Jenkins,  who  was  chosen  to  preside, 
had  all  along  worked  with  Wilson  for  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
The  secretary  of  the  meeting  was  Byron  Paine.  The  anti- 
land-limitationists  were  in  a  cheerful  mood,  having  received 
information  of  a  sudden  change  in  the  situation  of  affairs  at 
Madison,  which  foredoomed  the  bill  to  defeat.  They  made  no 
serious  effort,  therefore,  to  take  the  meeting  out  of  the  control 
of  the  party  which  had  called  it.  On  motion  of  S.  M.  Booth, 
the  chairman  appointed  a  committee  on  resolutions,  consisting 
of  Mr.  Booth,  James  Camack,  Edward  McKeeby,  James  Pais¬ 
ley  and  J.  H.  Paine.  During  the  retirement  of  the  committee  a 
speech  was  made  by  H.  H.  Van  Amringe,  a  land  reformer,  who 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


103 


had  been  invited  to  come  from  Cincinnati  to  address  the  meet¬ 
ing.  After  speaking  for  half  an  hour,  he  was  interrupted  by 
frecjuent  calls  for  Booth.  Mr.  Booth  at  length  reappeared  and 
read  a  series  of  resolutions  including  the  following: 

^'Resolved,  That  to  preserve  to  each  man  the  right  to  his 
inheritance  in  the  soil,  it  is  essential  that  a  limit  should  be  set  to 
the  amount  of  land  which  any  one  may  acquire  or  possess. 

''Resolved,  That  the  cardinal  principles  of  land  reform  are 
homestead  exemption,  free  farms  on  condition  of  occupancy 
and  improvement,  and  land-limitation. 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  absurd  to  limit  purchasers  in  the 
acquisition  of  public  and  state  lands,  and  to  allow  them  to 
monopolize  without  limit  the  possession  of  private  lands. 

"Resolved,  That  the  land-limitation  bill  now  before  the 
Legislature,  limiting  the  future  acquisition  of  land  for  each 
individual  to  640  acres  of  farming  land,  or  four  city  or  village 
lots  of  one  acre  each,  but  allowing  each  land-holder  to  retain  for 
life  all  lands  now  in  his  possession,  violates  no  law  and  no 
vested  rights,  is  liberal  in  its  provisions,  humane  and  just  in 
principle,  and  ought  to  become  the  law  of  the  state. 

"Resolved,  That  the  meetings  recently  gotten  up  in  this 
city  by  capitalists,  land-holders  and  their  attorneys,  to  condemn 
this  bill,  did  not  represent  the  sentiments  of  the  people  in  this 
city,  and  that  we  respectfully  request  our  representatives,  as 
thev  regard  the  wishes  and  interests  of  the  people,  to  vote  for 
thebill. 

"Resolved,  That  whether  we  succeed  or  fail  at  this  session 
of  the  Legislature,  we  pledge  ourselves  heartily  to  the  doctrines 
of  land  reform,  and  we  will  never  cease  our  efforts  till  land- 
limitation  becomes  the  law  of  the  state.” 

On  the  vote  for  acceptance  of  these  resolutions,  the  meeting, 
which  was  composed  of  a  thousand  or  more  people,  appeared  to 
some  of  those  present  to  be  about  equally  divided;  but  the 
chairman  decided  that  the  ayes  were  in  the  majority.  Abner 
Kirby  moved  to  amend  the  resolutions  by  adding: 

"Resolved,  That  all  the  property  in  the  United  States,  the 
state  of  Wisconsin,  and  the  city  of  Milwaukee,  ought  to  be 
equally  divided  every  Saturday  night,  and  oftener  if  considered 
necessary.” 


104 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


The  chairman  declared  the  amendment  ridiculous,  and 
decided  that  it  was  out  of  order. 

After  some  confusion,  Booth  made  a  brief  speech  and 
excused  himself  on  the  ground  of  sickness.  J.  H.  Paine  spoke 
in  favor  of  land-limitation,  and  closed  with  the  emphatic  decla¬ 
ration,  ‘T  say  this  law  shall  become  the  law  of  Wisconsin.’’ 
Someone  in  the  audience  shouted  back,  'T  say  it  shan’t.” 
Frederick  Fratney,  editor  of  the  Volksfreund,  spoke  in  German 
in  favor  of  the  bill. 

As  late  as  the  13th  of  February,  Mr.  Wilson  had  his  land- 
limitation  forces  in  the  Assembly  in  what  seemed  like  good 
fighting  order,  though  even  then  there  had  been  desertions  to 
the  camp  of  the  enemy.  It  was  on  the  date  named  that  the  bill 
was  read  for  the  third  time,  and,  the  question  being  on  its  pass¬ 
age,  Mr.  Briggs,  one  of  the  opponents  of  the  measure,  moved 
its  reference  to  the  committee  on  judiciary,  with  instructions  to 
investigate  how  far  it  might  affect  vested  rights,  and,  if  found  to 
affect  such  rights,  to  amend  it.  This  was  disagreed  to — ayes, 
24;  noes,  36.  Later  in  the  day,  the  pending  question  being  on 
the  passage  of  the  bill,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Jenkins,  one  of  its 
friends,  the  Assembly  adjourned.  When  Mr.  Wilson,  the  next 
day,  moved  the  suspension  of  the  rules  for  the  further  consid¬ 
eration  of  the  bill,  he  could  not  get  the  necessary  two-thirds 
vote,  the  call  for  ayes  and  noes  showing  33  in  favor  of  the 
motion  and  24  against  it.  The  Assembly  on  this  day  adopted 
a  resolution  calling  upon  the  attorney-general  for  his  opinion 
regarding  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill. 

On  Monday,  the  17th,  the  bill  was  taken  up,  according  to 
programme,  the  question  being  on  its  passage,  when  George  H. 
Walker  moved  to  lay  it  aside  for  the  present,  which  was  carried. 
Later  in  the  day  it  was  again  taken  up,  and  a  motion  by  Mr. 
Wilson  that  its  consideration  be  postponed  till  the  following 
Thursday  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  29  ayes  to  28  noes.  Deser¬ 
tions  were  occurring  thick  and  fast. 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MO  EE  ME  NT. 


105 


John  L.  Doran,  of  the  Milwaukee  delegation,  made  a  speech 
against  the  bill,  which  caused  many  who  had  originally  favored 
it  to  change  their  attitude.  Mr.  Doran  was  a  lawyer,  an  Irish¬ 
man  by  birth,  well  read  and  highly  cultivated,  with  a  genial 
manner,  which  generally  gained  him  the  favor  of  those  with 
whom  he  associated.  He  had  been  a  member  of  the  second 
Constitutional  Convention.  He  attacked  the  bill  on  legal  and 
constitutional  grounds.  An  insuperable  barrier  to  the  pro¬ 
posed  law,  he  said,  would  be  found  in  the  fourteenth  section  of 
the  first  article  of  the  Constitution  of  Wisconsin,  which  declares 
all  lands  within  the  state  to  be  allodial.  “The  bill  provides  that 
an  intestate’s  estate  shall  be  sold  to  the  landless ;  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  declares,  by  this  term  allodial,  that  it  shall  go  to  his  heirs.” 
He  went  on  to  argue  that  “under  the  Ordinance  of  1787  every 
acre  of  land  northwest  of  the  Ohio  River  is  owned  by  an  abso¬ 
lutely  allodial  title.”  “The  second  section  of  this  Ordinance,” 
he  continued,  “provides  that  the  estates  of  all  proprietors — resi¬ 
dent  or  non-resident — dying  intestate,  shall  descend  to  and  be 
distributed  among  their  children — a  course  of  descent  the  very 
reverse  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill  under  discussion.”  Finally, 
he  read  the  fourth  article  of  the  Ordinance,  to  show  that  any 
state  formed  in  the  Northwestern  Territory  should  be,  among 
other  things,  subject  and  conformable  to  the  acts  and  ordi¬ 
nances  of  the  United  States,  and  consequently  subject  to  this 
same  ordinance;  and  that  the  legislatures  of  the  states  should 
never  interfere  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil  by  the 
United  States.  From  this  he  argued  in  conclusion  that  as  the 
United  States  had  disposed  of  the  lands  northwest  of  the  Ohio 
River  as  allodial  lands,  the  Legislature  of  this  or  any  other  state 
could  not  alter  this  descent,  nor  could  even  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States. 

The  opinion  submitted  in  response  to  the  request  of  the 
Assembly  by  the  attorney-general  had  a  staggering  efiect  upon 
the  supporters  of  the  bill.  It  is  here  reproduced  at  length : 


106 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


“Madison,  February  17,  1851. 

"'Hon.  Frederick  W.  Horn.  Speaker  of  the  Assembly: 

“Sir — In  compliance  with  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  Assembly  on  the  14th 
inst.,  requesting-  my  opinion  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  ‘A  bill  to  limit  the  quantity  of 
land  hereafter  to  be  held  or  owned  by  any  one  person’,  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the 
following  opinion: 

“By  an  act  of  Congress  approved  August  6,  1846,  the  United  States  proposed  to  pay 
to  the  state  of  Wisconsin,  upon  the  conditions  and  for  the  purposes  therein  named,  5 
per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  all  the  public  lands  lying  within  the  state  (after 
deducting  all  expenses  incidental  to  the  .same)  which  had  been  or  which  should  be 
sold  after  the  state  had  been  admitted  to  the  Union. 

“This  act  was  amended  by  the  act  of  admission,  as  to  the  use  the  5  per  cent,  should 
be  put  to,  in  accordance  with  the  request  contained  in  the  fourth  resolution  appended 
to  the  constitution  of  the  state. 

“In  consideration  of  the  payment  of  the  said  5  per  cent,  as  aforesaid  Congress 
required  the  people  of  this  state  to  bind  themselves  by  a  clause  in  their  constitution,  or 
by  an  ordinance  irrevocable  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States,  never  to  inter¬ 
fere  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil  within  said  state  nor  with  any  regulations 
Congress  might  deem'  necessary  to  secure  the  same  to  bona  fide  purchasers  thereof 

“The  propositions  contained  in  the  act  of  Congress  first  above  referred  to  are,  upon 
the  terms  proposed,  fully  ratified  and  confirmed  by  Sec.  2,  Art.  II,  of  the  constitution 
of  the  state.  The  moment  said  propositions  were  accepted  a  solemn  compact,  obliga¬ 
tory  upon  both,  was  consummated  between  the  state  of  Wisconsin  and  the  United 
States. 

“It  seems  to  me  that  Sections  1  and  4  of  the  bill  now  under  consideration  are  in 
direct  contravention  of  this  compact,  and  hence  unconstitutional.  The  United  States 
offer  to  sell  and  convey  in  fee,  to  any  individual,  any  amount  of  laud  for  which  he  will 
pay.  Section  1  of  the  bill  prohibits  every  individual  from  becoming  the  owner  or 
po.ssessor  in  any  manner,  or  from  any  source,  of  more  than  640  acres  of  land,  thereby 
directly  interfering  with  the  United  States  in  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil. 

“Section  4  of  the  bill  in  substance  prohibits  all  compacts,  bargains,  sales  and 
conveyances  for  more  than  640  acres  of  the  public  domain.  The  right  to  purchase  is 
incidental  to  the  power  to  sell,  and  therefore  any  law  which  takes  away  or  conflicts 
with  this  right,  so  far  as  the  disposal  of  the  public  lands  by  the  general  government  is 
concerned,  is,  in  my  judgment,  a  direct  contravention  of  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 

“S.  PARK  COON, 

“Attorney  General.” 


Speaker  Horn  was  among  those  who  addressed  the  Assem¬ 
bly  in  opposition  to  the  bill.  He  began  with  a  personal  state¬ 
ment  worthy  to  be  studied  by  politicians  as  a  model  of  candid 
avowal : 

“As  an  explanation  of  my  conduct  in  this  matter  is  due  to 
the  honorable  gentleman  who  introduced  the  bill,  I  must  state 
that  I  had  a  conversation  with  him  in  Milwaukee,  when  he  in¬ 
formed  me  that  he  should  bring  the  land-reform  measure  before 
the  Legislature,  whereupon  I  told  him  that  I  would  not  only 
vote  for  it,  but  support  it,  if  necessary,  by  some  remarks.  I  had 
no  idea  that  such  a  bill  would  make  its  appearance,  and  when  it 
did  appear,  I  thought  it  was  nothing  but  a  joke,  or,  if  meant  in 
earnest,  would  not  receive  half  a  dozen  votes.  To  my  utter 
surprise  and  mortification,  however,  I  see  that  there  is  danger 
of  having  this  unconstitutional  and  impracticable  measure 
passed  through  the  Assembly.  I  then  could  not  keep  my  seat, 
quietly,  and  this  must  be  my  apology  to  the  Assembly  for  claim¬ 
ing  their  attention  for  a  few  moments.” 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT 


107 


In  a  light  and  airy  vein,  Mr.  Horn  objected  to  the  4th  of 
July  as  the  date  for  the  new  law  to  go  into  effect,  as  that  was  a 
day  dedicated  to  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  He  suggested  the 
30th  of  February  as  a  more  appropriate  day.  Then,  assuming 
a  serious  tone,  he  said:  “Our  constitution  provides  that  the 
Legislature  shall  pass  no  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  con¬ 
tracts.  Suppose,  as  a  citizen  of  another  state,  I  purchase  in 
Wisconsin  800  acres  of  land  from  the  government.  I  move  to 
Wisconsin  and  find  that  a  law  is  in  existence  allowing  me  to 
enter  only  640  acres,  and  the  rest  is  to  be  sold,  no  matter  at 
what  price.  Now,  sir,  I  did  purchase  those  800  acres  from  the 
United  States.  I  paid  a  valuable  consideration  for  the  same, 
and  entered  thereby  into  a  contract  with  the  United  States, 
which  contract  specified  that  I  should  hold  the  said  land  to 
hnyself,  my  heirs  and  assigns  forever.’  This  law,  however, 
steps  between  us  and  says:  ‘No,  your  former  contract  with  the 
United  States  is  null  and  void.  You  have  no  business  to  leave 
more  than  640  acres  to  your  child,  and  your  contract  that  you 
should  hold  the  land  to  yourself,  your  heirs  and  assigns  forever 
is  by  our  laws  annulled.’”  Such  a  law,  Mr.  Horn  declared, 
would  ruin  the  state  by  driving  away  its  population.  “Immi¬ 
gration  from  the  eastern  states  and  Europe,  so  necessary  for 
the  well-being  of  a  young  state,  will  cease  altogether,  *  *  * 

for  the  reason  that  man  is  always  trying  to  better  his  fortune, 
and  get  more.  I  must  confess  that  not  one  out  of  a  thousand 
ever  does  reach  the  pinnacle  of  his  worldly  ambition  as  far  as 
wealth  is  concerned,  and  that  in  this  respect  640  acres  is  more 
than  the  average  of  what  people  generally  acquire.  Still,  the 
idea  that  there  is  a  limit  to  their  acquiring  more  will  turn  man}^ 
an  immigrant  from  Wisconsin.” 

On  the  20th,  Mr.  Wilson  was  fain  himself  to  move  the  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  judiciary  committee  which  he  had  successfully 
opposed  when  it  was  advocated  by  the  enemies  of  the  bill  a  few 
days  before.  Mr.  Chase  moved  to  postpone  further  considera- 


108 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


tion  of  the  measure  till  the  4th  of  July,  and,  after  a  day  spent  in 
filibustering,  the  Assembly  finally  referred  the  bill  to  the 
judiciary  committee,  by  a  vote  of  32  to  29.  On  this  day  George 
H.  Walker  came  out  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  declaring  that  if 
passed,  its  results  would  be  ruinous  to  individuals  and  to  the 
state. 

The  bill  was  in  the  hands  of  the  judiciary  committee  till  the 
7th  of  March,  when  that  body  presented  two  reports  upon  it. 
Mr.  Biddlecome,  acting  for  the  majority  of  the  committee, 
reported  against  the  passage  of  the  bill,  as  being  in  its  provi¬ 
sions  both  unconstitutional  and  inexpedient.  Mr.  Estabrook, 
representing  the  minority,  reported  “in  favor  of  the  constitu¬ 
tionality  of  said  bill,  but  against  the  expediency  of  its  passage  at 
this  time,”  and  recommended  that  the  bill  be  laid  on  the  table. 

A  motion  by  Mr.  Jenkins  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table  was 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  24  to  42,  and  the  question  recurring  on  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  it  was  decided  in  the  negative — 27  ayes; 
39  noes. 

The  next  day  there  was  a  great  deal  of  parliamentary 
sparring  over  the  question  of  printing  the  reports  of  Mr.  Wil¬ 
son’s  committee  and  the  committee  on  judiciary.  Finally  it 
was  decided  that  500  copies  should  be  printed  of  Mr.  Wilson’s 
report  on  introducing  the  bill. 

The  Milwaukeeans  who  had  resolved  to  fight  for  land- 
limitation  until  it  became  a  law,  saw  other  channels  in  which 
they  could  be  useful,  and  the  500  copies  of  the  report  in 
its  favor  failed  to  make  new  converts  to  keep  alive  the  agitation. 
That  was  forty-six  years  ago,  but  there  has  never  been  another 
land-limitation  movement  in  Wisconsin, 

JOHN  GOADBY  GREGORY. 

Milwaukee,  Wisconsin,  April  13,  1897. 


rHE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


109 


APPENDIX. 

I. 

Following’  is  the  report  in  favor  of  the  passag’e  of  the  land- 
limitation  bill,  which  was  made  to  the  Assembly,  January  IG,  1851, 
by  William  K.  Wilson,  author  of  the  bill,  and  chairman  of  the  select 
committee  to  whom  had  been  referred  the  portion  of  the  Governor’s 
message  relating  to  land-limitation: 

“The  committee  on  land-limitation,  having  introduced  a  bill  entitled, 
‘a  bill  to  limit  the  quantity  of  land  hereafter  to  be  held  or  owned  by  any 
one  person,’  ask  leave  to  present  their  views  on  that  subject  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  report: 

“Nothing  is  more  important  for  the  prosperity  of  a  nation,  especially 
a  republic,  than  to  have  the  lands  of  the  nation  divided  among  the  people 
in  freeholds  of  reasonable  extent,  and  that  a  limit  be  affixed  to  the  quan¬ 
tity  of  land  which  any  one  person  may  acquire.  In  fact,  history  will 
inform  us  that  nations  have  been  happy  and  prosperous,  or  miserable 
and  weak,  just  in  proportion  as  this  rule  has  been  conformed  to.  The 
accumulation  of  lands  in  the  hands  of  the  Patricians  in  Rome  destroyed 
the  Republic;  and  the  accumulation  of  lands  in  the  hands  of  usurers,  in 
the  Roman  Empire,  destroyed  finally  the  Western  Empire  of  Rome. 

“St.  Pierre,  an  able  and  popular  French  writer,  in  his  ‘Studies  of 
Nature,’  translated  by  Hunter,  at  pages  119  and  120,  says,  ‘I  have  often 
been  astonished  that  there  is  no  law  to  prevent  the  unbounded  accumula¬ 
tion  of  landed  property.’  He  says  many  fine  things  in  favor  of  such  a 
law,  and  shows  the  influence  of  land  monopoly  in  producing  embarrass¬ 
ments  among  the  working  people,  and  in  corrupting  public  morals.  His 
work  was  published  in  1784.  In  truth,  land  monopoly  in  France  was  one 
main  cause  of  the  terrors  of  the  Revolution  in  that  country;  and  the  more 
equal  distribution  of  lands,  by  confiscation  and  sales,  prepared  the  way 
for  that  subsequent  strength  of  France  against  all  her  enemies. 

“It  is  a  false  supposition,  that  some  make,  that  in  a  true  state  of 
society,  a  time  will  ever  arrive  when  the  earth  will  not  present  homes 
for  the  entire  family  of  man  that  may  exist  at  one  time.  A  very  small 
place,  perhaps  about  150  miles  square,  would  afford  standing  room  for  all 
the  people  that  have  existed  in  the  6,000  years  since  the  creation.  Reduce 
10  miles  square  to  inches,  and  divide  this  area  by  18  inches  square  (viz., 
by  324  square  inches),  and  the  quotient  is  1,239,000,000  of  areas,  each  of  18 
inches  square.  There  are  not  more  than  800  millions  of  people  on  the  sur¬ 
face  of  the  globe,  and  as  there  are  1,239  millions  of  areas,  of  18  inches 
square  in  10  miles  square,  j^ou  might  collect  the  whole  population  of  the 
globe,  and  one-half  more,  if  you  could  find  them,  and  stand  this  entire 


110 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


population  on  the  District  of  Columbia,  allowing  every  man,  woman  and 
child,  including  the  infant  in  the  mother’s  arms,  18  inches  square  as  a 
space  for  standing,  and  all  the  spaces  would  not  be  occupied.  So  mere  a 
handful  are  the  people  of  the  globe,  compared  with  the  space  which  Prov¬ 
idence  has  prepared  for  them. 

“As  the  public  lands  of  our  country  for  which  no  vested  title  has 
yet  been  obtained  exceed  1,400,000,000  square  acres,  you  might,  in  a  frater¬ 
nal  state  of  society,  subsist  the  population  of  the  globe  on  these  lands, 
leaving  the  rest  of  the  world  unoccupied;  but  yet  under  the  effects  of  land 
monopoly  men  and  nations  are  starving  and  perishing  from  the  want  of 
lands,  notwithstanding  the  abundance  of  provision  for  all  which  the 
Deity  has  created. 

“The  deprivation  of  the  natural  right  of  man  to  the  soil  must  be 
injurious  to  all  classes  of  society.  The  workingmen  born  without  an 
inheritance  of  land  or  money,  are  thrown  into  an  over-crowded  market  of 
labor,  into  competition  with  their  brethren,  and  under  the  necessity  of 
selling  their  labor  or  mechanical  skill  for  a  rate  of  wages  barely  adequate 
to  sustain  life. 

“The  surplus  laborers,  unemployed,  are  deprived  of  the  right  to  life, 
except  upon  charity,  and  thus  their  minds  are  degraded  by  ignorance, 
and  their  morals  by  misery  and  crime. 

“Those  who  have  some  property,  and  who  live  by  manufactures  or 
commerce,  are  exposed  to  the  ruinous  operations  of  speculation  and  com¬ 
petition  by  overgrown  capitalists;  and  the  small  employer  is  in  too  many 
instances  at  the  mercy  of  a  larger  one,  who  holds  his  destiny  in  his  power. 

“To  both  rich  and  poor  land  monopoly  is  finally  injurious,  and  its 
sinister  results  may  be  beheld  in  all  departments  of  life  and  business.  In 
Wisconsin  the  ill  effects  of  land  monopoly  are  plainly  seen.  The  money 
expended  for  lands  and  amassed  by  speculators  from  the  toiling  masses 
for  the  mere  land,  which  God  created  for  the  good  of  all,  would,  if 
retained  by  the  working  people,  to  whom  it  belongs,  be  an  amount  of 
wealth  ample  for  the  erection  of  houses,  barns,  and  for  other  improve¬ 
ments,  saving  them  from  the  hard  necessity  of  resorting  to  loans  from 
usurers,  at  an  enormous  interest.  In  fact,  land  monopoly  is  the  monster 
parent  of  interest  for  money;  for  if  lands  were  free  to  all,  wealth  must 
remain  to  the  producer  of  it,  and  the  speculator  and  usurer  would  be 
compelled  to  change  their  vocations. 

“For  at  least  three  years  the  farmers  of  Wisconsin  have  suffered 
either  from  short  crops  or  from  injuries  to  grain  in  harvest,  or  from 
difficulty  in  getting  grain  to  market,  by  bad  roads.  Now,  may  it  not  be 
the  fact  that  these  evils  are  the  results  of  land  monopoly,  at  least  partly 
so?  Farmers  till  such  large  fields  that  they  can  not  do  that  justice  to 
their  husbandry  which  would  be  manifest  if  smaller  fields  were  well  put 
in.  Hence  the  winters  are  severe  upon  their  crops.  Neither  can  they 
gather  large  fields  so  well  as  they  could  smaller,  and  better  crops,  as  they 
have  not  help,  and  have  parted  with  the  money  for  land,  which  should 
have  gone  for  agricultural  machinery.  The  same  reason  prevents  them 
from  putting  up  capacious  barns  and  constructing  good  roads.  Their 
crops,  in  not  a  few  instances,  rot  in  the  fields,  or  they  are  prevented  from 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT. 


Ill 


getting  them  to  market,  or  they  are  obliged  to  go  to  market,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  debts,  at  the  most  unprofitable  time  of  the  year.  It  is  the 
opinion  of  the  committee  that  if  an  inquiry  were  made,  land  monopoly 
would  be  proved  to  be  the  cause  of  great  pecuniary  distress  in  this  state. 
There  is  plenty  of  money  at  the  East,  but  the  money  market  must  be 
always  difficult  and  straitening  in  a  new  agricultural  state  under  such 
consequences  of  land  monopoly. 

“Look  at  the  evils  also  indicted  on  [the]  community  from  the  fact 
that  town,  village  and  city  lots  are  in  many  instances  held  by  landlords 
for  rent.  If  a  tavern  stand,  a  shoe  shop,  clothing  store,  or  grocery  stand 
is  in  a  good  place  for  business,  the  landlord  puts  on  the  tenant  such  a 
rate  of  rent  that  the  tenant,  after  paying  all,  can  perhaps  only  barely  get 
along  with  his  family.  Hence  the  tenant  is  compelled  to  charge  his  cus¬ 
tomers  such  exorbitant  prices  that  the  public  often  complain  of  extortion, 
not  knowing  that  they  are  put  under  tribute  to  satisfy  the  rapacious 
exactions  of  land  monopolists.  This  is  a  great  and  common  evil,  and  the 
cause  is  not  enough  noticed  by  the  men  who  suffer  from  its  effects.  A 
few  men  thus  prey  upon  society.  If  the  owner  of  a  stand  occupies  it  him¬ 
self,  he  is  still  able  to  charge  extravagantly,  because  he  has  for  his  com¬ 
petitors  around  him  tenants  who  have  to  pay  high  rents,  and  who  have 
to  raise  their  prices  on  sales  to  cover  them,  and  just  in  conformity  with 
the  enormity  of  their  rents. 

“Land  monopoly  is  the  root  of  vast  evil  to  the  morals  of  our  citizens, 
to  the  cause  of  education,  and  to  practical  religion,  and  the  welfare  and 
happiness  of  our  country  demand  its  extirpation,  and  the  most  effectual 
plan  of  removing  the  evil  is  a  land-limitation  law  of  such  a  nature  as 
has  been  proposed. 

“Before  closing  this  report,  your  committee  would  commend  to  your 
consideration  the  following  extract  from  a  report  to  the  legislature  of 
New  York: 

“  Tt  is  contrary  to  justice  that  a  human  being  should  be  born  without 
having  the  right  to  a  free  home  somewhere  on  the  earth.  According  to 
the  theories  of  political  economy,  a  man  who  is  born  in  a  world  already 
occupied,  if  his  family  have  not  the  means  of  supporting  him,  and  societj'^ 
have  no  need  of  his  labor,  has  not  the  right  to  claim  any  portion  of  nour¬ 
ishment,  and  he  is  really  one  too  many  on  earth.  At  the  great  banquet  of 
nature,  there  is  no  room  for  him.  Whether  in  a  true  state  of  society,  and 
a  rightful  apportionment  of  the  soil,  the  earth  will  ever  be  over-peopled, 
is  a  problem  yet  to  be  solved,  and  which  time  only  can  answer. 

“  ‘The  all-wise  and  all-powerful  Architect  has  probably  so  ordained 
His  government  that  in  a  just  condition  of  society  overspreading  our 
world,  there  shall  be  a  natural  law  of  equilibrium  between  the  resources 
of  the  earth  and  the  entire  population,  so  that  no  famine  and  misery 
shall  then  arise.  But  if  it  were  destined  that  at  any  time  the  earth  should 
be  over-peopled,  we  ought  not  artificially  to  produce  the  horrors  of  such 
an  event  now,  in  the  infancy  of  society,  by  land  monopoly.’  ’’ 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

Wm.  K.  Wilson,  Chairman. 


112 


THE  LAND-LIMITATION  MOVEMENT 


II. 

To  indicate  the  positions  of  the  individual  members  of  the 
Assembly  with  regard  to  the  land-limitation  bill,  I  transcribe  from 
the  journal  the  records  of  two  votes  by  ayes  and  nays  which  were 
taken  at  different  stages  of  the  bill’s  progress.  The  first  was  taken 
on  the  6th  of  February.  The  report  of  the  committee  of  the  whole 
being  under  consideration,  and  the  question  being  on  concurring  in 
the  amendments  to  the  bill,  Mr.  Chase  moved  that  the  Assembly 
adjourn,  which  was  disagreed  to.  After  some  time  spent  in  filibust¬ 
ering,  the  putting  of  the  main  question  was  carried  by  the  following 
vote : 

Ayes— Barnett,  Biddlecome,  Bjornson,  Bradley,  Cavney,  Cole,  Cone, 
Dick,  Easton,  Estabrook,  French,  Gifford,  Groot,  Hale,  Hemenway,  Hurl- 
burt,  Jenkins,  Julius,  Kinney,  Lessey,  Lowth,  Malmros,  Moorman,  Mur¬ 
phy,  Muzzy,  Osborne,  Perkins,  Price,  Ray,  Seaver,  Smith,  Snover,  Stock, 
Tinker,  Toll,  Tompkins,  Tregaskis,  Utley,  Vincent,  Whiton,  Wilson  and 
Wing— 43.* 

Nays— Bird,  Boyce,  Briggs,  Chase,  Clothier,  Everly,  Fuller,  H.  John¬ 
son,  J.  B.  Johnson,  Moore,  Rogan,  Spooner,  Van  Vliet,  Waldo  and  Horn 
(speaker) — 15. 

The  vote  by  which  the  bill  was  defeated,  on  Friday'',  March  7,  was 
as  follows: 

Ayes— Barnett,  Bjornson,  Bradley,  Cavney,  Dick,  Eaton,  Estabrook, 
Everly,  Gifford,  Groot,  Hale,  Henning,  Jenkins,  Julius,  Lowth,  Moorman, 
Muzzy,  Price,  Ray,  Snover,  Tinker,  Toll,  Tompkins,  Utley,  Vincent, 
Whiton  and  Wilson— 27. 

Nays— Banister,  Biddlecome,  Bird,  Boyce,  Briggs,  Chase,  Clothier,  Cole, 
Cone,  Doran,  Eastman,  French,  Fuller,  Hemenway,  Hurlburt,  H.  John¬ 
son,  J.  B.  Johnson,  Jones,  Kinney,  Ladue,  Lessey,  Malmros,  Moore,. 
Murphy,  Olmstead,  Osborn,  Perkins,  Rodolf,  Rogan,  Seaver,  Smith, 
Spooner,  Stock,  Tregaskis,  Van  Vliet,  Waldo,  Walker,  Wing  and  Horn 
(speaker) — 39. 


*This  is  the  vote  as  recorded  on  page  253  of  the  journal  of  the  Assem¬ 
bly  for  1851.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  names  foot  up  42  instead  of  43. 
It  may  also  be  worthy  of  note  that  the  date  placed  over  this  day’s  pro¬ 
ceedings  in  the  journal  is  “Thursday,  February  30,’’  instead  of  “Thursday, 
February  6. 


Copyrighted,  1897,  by  John  G.  Gregory 


PARKMAN  CLUB  PUBLICATIONS. 


No,  1.  Nicholas  Perrot;  a  Study  in  Wisconsin  History.  By  Gard¬ 
ner  P.  Stickney,  Milwaukee,  1895.  16  pp.  paper;  8vo. 

No.  2.  Exploration  of  Lake  Superior;  the  Voyages  of  Radisson  and 
Groseilliers.  By  Henry  Colin  Campbell,  Milwaukee, 
1896.  22  pp.,  paper;  8vo. 

No.  3.  Chevalier  Henry  de  Tonty;  His  Exploits  in  the  Valley  of 
the  Mississippi.  By  Henry  E.  Legler,  Milwaukee,  1896. 
22  pp.,  paper;  8vo. 

No.  4,  The  Aborigines  of  the  Northwest;  a  Glance  into  the  Remote 
Past.  By  Prank  T.  Terry,  Milwaukee,  1896.  14  pp., 
paper;  8vo. 

No.  5.  Jonathan  Carver;  His  Travels  in  the  Northwest  in  1766-8. 

By  John  G.  Gregory,  Milwaukee,  1896.  28  pp.,  1  plate, 
1  map,  paper;  8vo. 

No.  6.  Negro  Slavery  in  Wisconsin.  By  Rev.  John  N.  Davidson, 
Milwaukee,  1896.  28  pp.,  paper;  8vo. 

No,  7,  Eleazer  Williams;  His  Forerunners,  Himself,  By  William 
Ward  Wight,  Milwaukee,  1896.  72  pp.,  portrait,  and  four 
appendices,  paper;  8vo. 

No.  8.  Charles  Langlade,  First  Settler  of  Wisconsin.  By  Mont¬ 
gomery  E.  McIntosh,  Milwaukee,  1896.  20  pp.,  paper;  8vo. 

No.  9.  The  German  Voter  in  Wisconsin  Politics  Before  the  Civil 
War.  By  Ernest  Bruncken,  Milwaukee,  1896,  14  pp., 
paper;  8vo. 

No.  10.  The  Polanders  in  Wisconsin.  By  Prank  H.  Miller,  Milwau¬ 
kee,  1896.  8  pp.,  paper;  8vo. 

No.  11,  Pdre  Ren6  Menard,  the  Predecessor  of  Allouez  and  Mar¬ 
quette  in  the  Lake  Superior  Region.  By  Henry  Colin 
Campbell,  Milwaukee,  1897.  24  pp.,  paper;  8vo. 

No.  12.  George  Rogers  Clark  and  His  Illinois  Campaign.  By  Dan 
B.  Starkey,  Milwaukee,  1897.  38  pp.,  paper;  8vo. 

No.  13.  The  Use  of  Maize  by  Wisconsin  Indians.  By  Gardner  P. 
Stickney,  Milwaukee,  1897.  25  pp..  paper;  8vo. 

No.  14,  The  Land-Limitation  Movement,  A  Wisconsin  Episode  of 
1848-1851.  By  John  Goadby  Gregory.  Milwaukee,  1897. 
24  pp.,  paper;  8vo. 

IN' PRESS. 

Legler,  Henry  E.— A  Moses  of  the  Mormons. 

IN  PREPARATION 

Bruncken,  Ernest— The  German  Voter  in  Wisconsin  Politics. 

This  paper  will  include  the  period  of  the  Civil  War. 

Campbell,  Henry  Colin— Du  Luth,  the  Explorer. 

Davidson,  Rev.  John  Nelson— Underground  Railway  Stations  in 

Wisconsin. 

Kelly,  Frederick  W.— Local  Government  in  Wisconsin. 

La  Boule,  Rev.  Joseph  S.— Allouez,  the  Father  of  Wisconsin 

Missions, 

Legler,  Henry  E.— Wisconsin  Nomenclature. 

McIntosh,  Montgomery  E. — Cooperative  Communities  in 

Wisconsin. 

Miller,  Frank  H.— The  Buffalo  in  Wisconsin. 

Starkey,  Dan  B.— The  Fox- Wisconsin  Waterway. 

Stickney,  Gardner  P.— An  Historical  Consideration  of  the  Beaver. 

Wight,  William  Ward— Joshua  Glover,  the  Fugitive  Slave. 


An  index  to  the  Club’s  publications  during  1896  will  soon  be 
Issued. 


Publication  Committee— Henry  Colin  Campbell,  Henry  E.  Leg¬ 
ler  and  John  G.  Gregory.  _ 


The  Parkman  Club  was  organized  December  10th,  1895,  for  study 
of  the  history  of  the  Northwest.  A  limited  number  of  copies  of  each 
publication  are  set  aside  for  sale  and  exchange.  Single  copies  are 
sold  at  the  uniform  price  of  25  cents,  and  the  annual  subscription 
(ten  numbers)  is  placed  at  $2.00. 

Correspondence  may  be  addressed, 

Gardner  P.  Stickney,  Secretary, 

427  Bradford  Street,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 


